I have very strong reservations regarding ETSU’s decision that allows teachers and faculty to carry firearms on campus. I was even more disheartened to learn of future plans that may allow students to do the same. I am happy to learn that a decision was made with certain restrictions; however, that does not fully satisfy my legitimate concern of an armed faculty.
So everyone is fully aware of my position, in respect to gun rights, I am a conservative leaning republican and am very pro-gun. At times, I even used the phrase, “If you want my guns, by all means come take them”. I have a very strong belief that the United States government should not infringe on that right. This does not mean I am against all measures that assist in the prevention of needless deaths that continue in our great country. Some extreme gun control activist would like people to believe that all gun owners are heartless warmongers who fail to value life. This could not be further from the truth. We are pro-gun because we are pro-life. We value life and believe we must protect it at all cost. The right to bear arms is just a tool that we use it to protect that conviction.
By requesting more restrictions on this specific matter, I fear I may have crossed a line with my fellow pro-gun advocates. Before either side dismisses my concern or the legitimacy of it, please listen to my argument. If we have come to the point our safety of the student body and faculty is best secured by an armed faculty, we have other serious concerns that need addressed. Again, I am not “anti-gun”. I am however for limitations that can prevent other problems from occurring in the near future.
We must first understand what relationships exist on campus and what expectations exist between those relationships. All relationships have purpose and operate within a role that carry certain parameters so expectations are not violated. In this specific case, student to teacher and employee to employer; one side teaches the other side learns, one side works as the other side supervises. All faculty members have very specific roles and job descriptions. At no point is the role of the faculty to protect anyone and we should not allow them to accept that role, unless of course the position was filled explicitly for that purpose. Those roles of course are exempt in this argument. We are not privileged to know those who are allowed to carry because of privacy concerns.
I do not feel safe knowing the number of armed faculty members has grown. I also find fault in a follow-up article that includes future hopes of allowing the student body to carry guns as well. Are we actually going to allow this to happen? To me it is not so much about the guns or the allowance to carry them. My concern is aligned from a standpoint of responsibility, due diligence and acknowledgment that ETSU allows concealed guns to exist on campus property without a truly defined and known program. Has ETSU and its governing body done everything in their power to ensure these individuals (faculty concealed gun holders) are in fact competent and have all the necessary skills to create a positive effect on campus?
Skills, knowledge, and situational awareness are a few things that would fall into the category of requirements to have a positive effect. What about an individual’s emotional or mental state? In addition, the proven ability to operate in a situation of heightened emotional stress that requires extreme focus and self-control is very important. These are all needed to show true competency exists. When a person is tasked with pulling out a weapon and charged with the responsibility that may incur the possible discharge of a weapon into an assailant, certain questions need answered. How many of those 47 armed individuals ever had to fire at a live target? Not an animal, I am referring to a human.
Are those with these concerns not allowed to question the legitimacy of the process that allows individuals to carry concealed weapons on campus? Are we only allowed the reassurance from those in power when they tell us, “They have a permit”? Let’s not forget the limitations of a permit issued by a state. The permit only shows us the minimum requirements have been satisfied, which removes any liability from the state. Those minimum requirements are a far cry from the competency I described. A higher level of requirements are needed so the concealed permit holders can operate in an acceptable and successful manner. Do we deserve a more complete process and a better plan that would allow this program to operate more efficiently? Maybe a better question is, do we deserve this expectation and will ETSU allow us to cry foul if we feel it is violated?
Whether or not individuals are allowed to carry a firearm on campus, regardless of their role with the ETSU, is of little concern to my argument. I would also caution those who want to argue from a standpoint of pro-gun or anti-gun. This is something that transcends that argument and is more important. No matter the position on gun control, we must realize that we all are facing more important stakes than just the existence of a gun. My position is not one of more gun control but one that asks for accountability for competency and logic. A right of ownership or the privilege to carry does not trump my concerns of a safe campus for all. I am not saying to remove the concealed carry option or arguing for the idea of limitations that would allow for future expansion of the program. I am simply asking for accountability and proper proof that the individuals who carry a concealed firearm on campus meet the criteria of what I described as competent.
Think about the role ETSU could play in the future regarding the possession of guns on campus and across the nation. This is likely an issue that will stay. It will include further debate from many different positions. As more campuses are given the discretion which allows concealed firearms, we have the chance to create a model or a standard that other institutions will want to follow. Lets start talks of a more in-depth program through knowledge and training that would allow a true atmosphere of feeling safe that can be shared from the entire population of ETSU, regardless of their position of gun control.
It’s an opportunity to shine on a large stage and a chance to show all who are watching what Buccaneers are capable of. Through responsibility, open dialogue, and controls, guns “can” improve safety on a college campus. Until we can prove that an extremely high standard has been met, I cannot in good conscience support any type of firearm on campus. I have never and will never support gun control measures that remove my basic right to bear arms; however, I will support a system that shows true accountability so a successful outcome may achieved.
We cannot continue to be naive as to allow this program to exist and function without the proper safeguards. At a minimum we need to open dialogue between students and faculty. This will allow understanding compromise and most importantly, the chance for all sides to be heard. If this has already taken place in the past, great but it still affects the students and faculty of today’s enrollment and future enrollment to come. What happens when students claim they feel unsafe and this starts to affect their ability to learn or even the willingness to attend class?
These and other issues should be discussed and are very legitimate concerns. Dismissing them as unimportant would be a very serious mistake. If anything were to happen in the future, failure to act would constitute an admission of guilt and should be handled with extreme punishment. ETSU, as an institution of higher learning and one who operates to promote different opinions and growth through knowledge, needs to encourage these conversations and must have the unwavering support from the governing body of ETSU. The entire student body, faculty, and others who step on campus deserve better. If we fail to act in a manner which allows the proper attention this subject deserves, shame on us…
Be the first to comment